An ACT member writes in:

There is a distinct parallel with what happened when Rodney took over the ACT leadership.  Caucus did not back him because they knew him, but he was able to woo the party membership.   In the end it unraveled because a leopard does not change his spots, and the flaws of which caucus members were only too well aware eventually led to his and the party’s demise.

If Cunliffe can pull this off then he is a genius.  I suspect that large numbers of caucus members will be full of foreboding for what the future holds.

I think a comparison of Hide to Cunliffe is somewhat unfair, but the reader is correct that there is a precedent in NZ of a leader being elected without the support of his caucus.

Tracy Watkins writes:

If the deputy leadership was a lost opportunity for symbolism, Cunliffe’s first head-to-head battle with Prime Minister John Key was another. In a sign of how heavily caucus headaches had been weighing on his mind, Cunliffe’s usual polish deserted him and he muffed his questions to Key not just once but twice.

That won’t upset his supporters too much; even on a bad day Cunliffe’s sure-footedness in the job is a marked contrast to his predecessor David Shearer.

And Jane Clifton:

Brain experts are always telling us that the subconscious is never off- duty, and it was pretty clear yesterday that David Cunliffe’s deeper mind hijacked his mouth during his first clash with the Prime Minister as Labour leader in Parliament yesterday.

He’s had an intense few weeks of campaigning for the new job most caucus colleagues didn’t want him to have, and 48 hours of demoting some of them, and sacking their staff. So when the time came to demand answers from John Key about the Government’s protection of tech company Chorus, out came the word “caucus” instead. Quite the Freudian slip.

He kept his composure during the resulting laughter, but when he repeated his question, about a phone call from the chairman of Chorus, out came “caucus” again – followed by another volley of hilarity.

It was repeating the mistake that really led to the hilarity.

“Why don’t we try that one more time?” he said wryly to Speaker David Carter, before finally managing to say “Chorus” – which drew him a chorus of mock approval from the Government benches. And possibly a caucus of mock approval from his own benches.

Heh.

John Armstrong writes:

The bout everyone had been waiting for began just before 2pm with a lengthy handshake, the Prime Minister making a rare crossing of Parliament’s chamber to the Opposition benches to congratulate David Cunliffe on his new job before returning to the Government trenches with every intention of demolishing yet another Labour leader.

It ended at 2.16pm with the new Leader of the Opposition resuming his seat, perhaps a little bruised, but otherwise intact, having failed to do likewise to Key. …

As a former Communications minister, Cunliffe well understands the issues. He certainly floated like a butterfly, at times diverging from his set list of questions if warranted.

But the fuss over the Government’s stance on a Commerce Commission ruling is complicated. Cunliffe’s eight questions to Key failed to build a convincing case of “crony capitalism” on the part of National and Chorus.

Key had come well-briefed, the mass of blue stickies splicing his papers being the clue. Cunliffe thus stung like a butterfly.

The only harm was self-inflicted. At one point, Cunliffe referred to the chairman of Chorus as the “chairman of caucus”. When the laughter died down, he inexplicably did exactly the same thing again. When he finally got it right a third time, National MPs burst into ironic cheers and applause.

And Fran O’Sullivan:

David Cunliffe leveraged the “axe the copper tax” campaign in Parliament yesterday to signal he intends to keep waging war against John Key’s Government over claims it is indulging in “crony capitalism”. Cunliffe’s question was direct: “Does he still think that Chorus will go broke if his Government does not intervene to change the pricing for access to the old copper-based broadband network as proposed by the Commerce Commission; if so, why?”

It was a marked change from the fatuous and deeply repetitive questions that Cunliffe’s predecessor David Shearer used to lob in each week asking Key if he “stood by all his statements”.

It was a welcome change from that silly question.

Cunliffe has strong support from the unions who played a huge role in catapulting him into the top job.

It’s inevitable that business lobbies will be seeking an assurance that a future Labour Government will not be purely a creature of the union lobby, that it will be pragmatic and not doctrinaire.

He didn’t get 70% of their vote for nothing!

And finally Audrey Young:

Prime Minister John Key walked across Parliament’s debating chamber and shook David Cunliffe’s hand to congratulate him on his election as Labour leader before the battle commenced. …

Mr Cunliffe twice questioned Mr Key about getting a phone call from the chair of Chorus, but opened himself up to a right hook from Mr Key.

Perhaps with the memory of his first caucus meeting today fresh in his mind, he twice referred to Mr Key getting a call from the “chair of caucus”.

On the third attempt, he got it right to mocking applause from the Government benches.

“One thing is true,” said Mr Key, “I do get a phone call from my caucus, but they all voted for me….

I can only imagine what the phone call from Trevor is like in San Francisco at the moment.

I suspect Trevor will get a round of applause when he returns to the House.

Michael Forbes at Stuff reports:

Wellingtonians are losing faith in the ability of the city council to make decisions in the best interest of the city.

Just 31 per cent of people who participated in the council’s own resident satisfaction survey this year felt the council was on top of things as a decision-making body.

Last year, that number was 55 per cent, and in 2010 – the last year of the previous council – it was 61 per cent.

That’s a huge drop off in confidence, and the current Mayor and Council have to take responsibility for this. In just three years they have had 30% of Wellingtonians lose faith in their ability to make decisions that are good for Wellington.

The Herald reports:

Britain’s leading Muslim organisation warned yesterday that a judge’s landmark ruling that women should not give evidence in court while wearing the veil threatened to undermine the nation’s long-standing tradition of religious tolerance.

Amid warnings by the Muslim Council of Britain of an increasingly “hysterical” debate on the niqab, Judge Peter Murphy concluded that a female defendant would be allowed to attend court while wearing the Islamic face covering but would not be permitted to take the witness stand unless she removed it.

No other ruling is possible. Of course you must be able to see the face of a witness. Observing body language is crucial for lawyers and a jury.

People can believe whatever they want. But their beliefs do not trump the law.

Talat Ahmed, chair of the council’s social and family affairs committee, said: “Every time we discuss the niqab, it usually comes with a diet of bigoted commentary about our faith and the place of Islam in Britain. There are few people who wear the niqab, and they should be allowed to wear this veil if they freely decide to do so.”

She said banning the garment was “un-British” and would mean “embarking on a slippery slope where the freedom to wear religious attire of all faiths would be at risk”.

Who is talking of banning them? The court has merely said you can’t testify in court wearing one.

The woman denies attempting to intimidate a witness. When she stands trial in November the court will be adjourned and cleared to allow her to identify herself to a female court officer. When she gives evidence with her face uncovered she will be able to do so from behind a screen or via video-link so she will not be on view.

Sounds like the court has bent over backwards.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00 PM – 3.00PM.

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What is the forecast cost to the Crown of the Government’s plan to allow buyers of Meridian Energy shares to pay for their shares in instalments and will the instalment scheme be open to overseas institutions?
2. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand economy and business growth?
3. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Given that he disagrees with the advice of the Treasury on the Tiwai smelter, who advised it should not be subsidised by taxpayers because “it would result in a significant transfer of value from New Zealanders to Pacific Aluminium and Rio Tinto shareholders”, does he then agree with the New Zealand Herald that the $30 million dollar taxpayer subsidy paid to the Rio Tinto-owned smelter is “an abject piece of short sighted thinking”; if not, why not?
4. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Education: Did her statement that “Partnership Schools/Kura Hourua will play their part in meeting our target of five out of five students achieving success in education. They will be established in areas where kids are currently underserved by the existing education system” reflect any selection criteria for the first partnership schools; if not, why not?
5. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcement has he made about Block Offer 2014?
6. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Is she satisfied that all relevant government departments and agencies have the funding and resources required to implement her Children’s Action Plan?
7. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made that will get beneficiaries better deals on whiteware appliances, saving taxpayers money?
8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Does he stand by his statement yesterday in relation to the Earthquake Commission’s latest privacy breach “I guess when they’re dealing with that level of correspondence, things can happen”?
9. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: What is the cost of deferring the construction of the Auckland City Rail Link from 2015, the preferred start date of Auckland Council, to 2020, the Government’s proposed start date?
10. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has she made to reduce re-offending in prison?
11. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he agree that every person can afford healthcare and disability support, regardless of their income, health status, or risk profile?
12. MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister of Transport: What progress has been made as part of the Safer Journeys road safety strategy?

Today Labour are asking four questions. these are on the Tiwai Point Smelter subsidy, the Children’s Action Plan, the Earthquake Commission, and support for people with disabilities. The Greens are asking three questions. They are about the Meridian Share Float, Partnership Schools and the Auckland City Rail Link.

Patsy of the day goes to Melissa Lee for Question 7: What announcements has she made that will get beneficiaries better deals on whiteware appliances, saving taxpayers money?

General Debate 3.00PM – 4.00PM.

12 Speeches of no more than 5 minutes each.

Valedictory Statement of the Hon Lianne Dalziel, MP for Christchurch East 5.45-6.00PM

A Valedictory statement is the final speech of a Member of Parliament upon retirement or resignation. Lianne Dalziel has served Minister of Immigration, Commerce, Minister of Food Safety and Associate Minister of Justice in the Fifth Labour Government. Dalziel is resigning to contest the Christchurch Mayoralty.

Government Bills 4.00PM-5.45 PM and 7.30PM-10.ooPM

1.Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill – First Reading (Continued)

2.Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill -Committee Stage

3. Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill – Second Reading

4. Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) – Second Reading.

The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill empowers the High Court to issue a public protection order to detain a person in a secure facility, when, at the end of a finite prison sentence or subject to the most intensive form of an extended supervision order, they pose a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent reoffending.

The Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill would implement the Government’s decisions resulting from a review of the Family Court conducted by the Ministry of Justice.

The Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Broadcasting. This bill extends for three years the ban on the commercial parallel importation of films.

The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) is being guided through the house by the Minister for Local Government, Chris Tremain. This bill seeks to amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to enable local boards established under the Act to delegate responsibilities, duties or powers conferred or allocated to them under the Act.

The Dom Post editorial:

Three days in the water and Team Cunliffe has struck its first snag.

The snag is the abdication of deputy leader Grant Robertson. Labour’s new leader and the party’s MPs, including Mr Robertson, did their best yesterday to put a positive spin on the surprise development.

MPs were “joining together” and “putting the party first”, Mr Cunliffe said.

The new line-up featuring finance spokesman David Parker as deputy leader was the “strongest” that could be put forward, said Mr Robertson, who has replaced Trevor Mallard as shadow leader of the House. However, the reality is that the new leader has lost an opportunity to heal the wounds created by the internal feuding that has bedevilled the party since its 2008 election loss.

Whether Mr Robertson declined overtures from the Cunliffe camp, as the bush telegraph suggests, or Mr Cunliffe preferred Mr Parker as his deputy is beside the point. If Mr Cunliffe did not offer Mr Robertson the job he should have.

After a three-way primary contest for the leadership laid bare the divisions between MPs, and the divisions between MPs and the wider party, Labour not only needs to talk unity, it needs to display it. The best way to achieve that would have been for the two main contenders for the leadership – Mr Cunliffe and Mr Robertson – to present a united front to the world.

I understand that if Robertson had clearly stated a desire to be Deputy, Cunliffe would have appointed him. But he was hesitant and not keen – presumably to keep future options open.

That may be an indication Mr Robertson is fearful of becoming entangled in the wreckage should the Cunliffe experiment capsize.

It may also be an indication that Mr Robertson has not yet abandoned his own leadership ambitions.

Whatever the case, Mr Cunliffe has grounds for concern.

Remember that while the members vote for the leader, it is the caucus that has the sole job of sacking one.

Team Cunliffe has successfully rounded the first mark but one hull is lifting out of the water and there are signs some of his crew are thinking about abandoning ship. Anticipate developments.

The best tweet yesterday was about how a capsized Mallard was sighted in San Francisco Harbour 🙂

The Herald editorial:

Grant Robertson’s decision to spurn the deputy leadership does not bode well for the Labour Party under its new leader. David Cunliffe had intimated his support for Mr Robertson in the clear hope of reconciling the caucus to the result of the party election.

Mr Robertson, preferred by 16 MPs to 11 for Mr Cunliffe and seven for Shane Jones, had given every impression in the campaign that whatever the result he was unlikely to rock the boat. Now he is making waves.

His decision is a declaration that he does not wish to work too closely with the new leader. Instead he will be Labour’s shadow leader of the House, a role that may let him range widely of his own accord.

The decision suggests he has not put his leadership ambition aside for the time being. If he was content to wait he would have continued in the deputy role, an ideal position for keeping your name to the fore and proving yourself capable in the leader’s absences. But an ambitious and honourable deputy is also supposed to give the leader unconditional support. That perhaps was the obstacle for Mr Robertson continuing in a job he has reputedly done well.

It is hard to interpret the decision as anything other than a lack of confidence, and a desire to keep future options open.

Downstage has announced:

The Board of Downstage Theatre today announced its decision to close the company.

The decision comes following the announcement by Creative New Zealand not to fund Downstage in 2014.

Downstage Theatre Trust chair, Allan Freeth, said today that the Board had not taken the decision lightly.

“Downstage has a fifty year history of bringing outstanding theatre experiences to Wellington audiences.”

“In recent years the theatre has pursued a new model – based on partnerships with artistic companies, taking risks on new works, and creating a supportive environment for artists.

“It is not possible to continue this work without adequate and stable funding.”

Mr Freeth said the Board acknowledged the many achievements of the individuals and artists who have worked with Downstage over the years, and the professionalism and hard work of the theatre’s staff.  In particular, the Board acknowledged the contribution of CEO and Director Hilary Beaton.

Downstage has been an institution in Wellington, and it is very sad to see it close. I’ve seen many great plays there, and so many people have contributed to it over the years.

The only consolation is that Wellington is at least well served by other theatres such as Circa, Bats, Gryphon etc. But it will be a shame to lose the custom made Downstage building from theatre – unless of course another theatre buys the building.

The latest road safety video has had 450,000 views on You Tube.

Stuff reports:

Recreational fishers will now be able to catch seven snapper a day, after the Government abandoned plans to slash the quota from nine to three.

But the fishers will now have to catch bigger fish – and they are not happy.

Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy said this afternoon the limit reduction was needed because recreational fishers in the upper North Island’s east coast had been catching well above the set allowance in recent years.

The announcement follows ministry consultation on how to manage and rebuild New Zealand’s northern snapper population, which has “collapsed” alarmingly in recent years.

The process sparked outrage among recreational fishers due to a plan to cut the daily catch to three.

Fishers will now be allowed to catch seven snapper a day, measuring 30 centimetres long – up from 27cm.

The actual quota for recreational fishers has increased by 500 tonnes. However this is still less than the levels being fished, and hence the restrictions.

The changes relate to what is called the Snapper 1 Fishery area, which runs from the top of eastern Northland to the Bay of Plenty.

The fishery is one of the most heavily used by recreational anglers in New Zealand and the Ministry for Primary Industries said it was those fishers who were pushing the number of snapper into danger.

Since 1997 recreational fishers in the area had been allowed to take 2550 tonnes a year. But on average for the last five years the recreational catch has been estimated at 3365 tonnes a year.

Recreational fishers believe they have been unfairly landed with the responsibility of rebuilding the snapper stock. Since 1985 they have had four cuts to their bag limits and size. Commercial fishing limits have remained largely unchanged since 1986.

As I understand it, as more and more people fish, the bag limit per fisher has decreased – but not the overall quota.

This has been a politically potent issue. It will be interesting to see what level of backlash there is, if any, with the final decision. Will any other political party campaign on increasing the bag limit or reducing the minimum size?

The Herald reports:

The Indian lawyer for two of the four Delhi gang rapists sentenced to hang last week has criticised the victim’s parents for allowing her to go out at night with a boy, and claimed he would have “burnt her alive” if she had been his daughter.

The victim, a 23-year-old physiotherapy student, was attacked by five men and a juvenile on a bus she boarded with her boyfriend. The couple were on their way home from a popular Delhi shopping mall on December 16 last year.

She was gang-raped and attacked with an iron rod. She died two weeks later in hospital.

AP Singh, a defence lawyer who represented two of the convicts, claimed she had had premarital sex and said: “If my daughter was having premarital sex and moving around at night with her boyfriend, I would have burnt her alive. All parents should adopt such an attitude.”

All women should burn the defence lawyer alive for being an arsehole and see how he likes it.

ACC is consulting on its proposed levies for next year, and the news looks good for levy payers.

• 17% reduction in the combined average Work levy from $1.15 for every $100 of ‘liable earnings’ to $0.95 for every $100 of liable earnings
• 15% reduction in the combined average Motor Vehicle levy from $330.68 to $280
• 15% reduction in the Earners’ levy from $1.48 for every $100 of ‘liable earnings’ to $1.26

Bob Robertson puts the case for his proposed Fiordland monorail:

Tourism directly and indirectly employs more than 180,000 people and is worth $10 billion to our economy each year. We need to continue to innovate in our tourism offering and deliver on our marketing promise. We need new initiatives, ideally three or four of them, or we will lose our competitive edge.

The Fiordland Link Experience is one such initiative. Through a three-stage trip via catamaran across Lake Wakatipu, off-road vehicle on existing backcountry roads and monorail to Te Anau Downs, it would open up an area of spectacular beauty for people of all ages and all abilities.

It would show off the pristine Fiordland National Park without actually entering it, contrary to the perception opponents have deliberately fostered.

This is a key point, that I for one was surprised to learn.

We only need to look across the Tasman to see how a tourism development can be successfully achieved in a World Heritage area.

When the Cairns Skyrail was being proposed for the Barron Gorge National Park in the 1990s there were marches in the street and protesters attempted to block construction.

And the Skyrail today is one of the most popular attractions in the area. I’ve used it twice to see their magnificent park.

In New Zealand, there is an elitist sentiment among some that we should lock up our conservation estate for the few who are capable of physically reaching it. They believe business has no place in nature.

In reality, 44 per cent of the South Island is in the conservation estate and hosts about 2800 commercial concessions, including roughly 500 that are tourism or recreation-related.

It isn’t a question of either business or conservation. They can and do co- exist.

Even the Milford Track has huts on it, you don’t require people to sleep in tents.

We would not be committed to the Fiordland Link Experience if we did not believe the construction and operation could be achieved with only minimal impact on the environment and recreational users.

The reasoning is simple – we want to celebrate our nature and show it off. It is in our interests to protect nature, because that’s the experience we’re selling.

As a hunter and fisher who has spent thousands of hours in the surrounding area, I know there is room for a world- class tourism experience.

It will reinvigorate the tourism market in Fiordland, stimulate the economy, bring jobs and enable us to market the entire region, including Te Anau, to the world. All without a cent of taxpayer money.

I like the last point.

Bill Jarvie argues against:

The “experience” would not reduce the travel time for Milford Sound tourists. Once off-loaded from the monorail they would be bussed for another 1 1/2 hours to Milford. In one day they would endure a minimum of 12 changes of transport in a convoluted return trip.

That to me is not a reason to refuse consent. That’s a commercial issue for the operator. If few people want to change transport that often, then they won’t get many customers.

What has changed from inception is that the intended destination of the monorail is to the company’s hotel/restaurant site at Te Anau Downs, avoiding tourist-dependent Te Anau.

Te Anau is vibrant and superbly set up with international class hotels, award-winning motels and restaurants. It is the most appropriate destination en route to Milford Sound.

Again, that is a commercial not a conservation decision. The opposition is sounding more like economic protectionism than conservation.

In order to achieve the numbers, Riverstone would construct more than 29 kilometres of elevated concrete and steel monorail plus permanent parallel construction-maintenance roading through remote World Heritage forest and river valleys.

What Jarvie doesn’t say is that it doesn’t pass through the Fiordland National Park itself, and only around 2 hectares (a minuscule amount) of World Heritage area is impacted.

MR Robertson’s comparison with the Cairns Skytrail is amusing. The Skytrail is a leisurely traverse of the tree tops through what was already a developed landscape. Trees were specifically avoided, not felled.

Passengers can step out at mid- stations to experience the forest interior from boardwalks and lookouts, and spend time in an interpretation centre.

To meet its timetable the monorail ride would be at speeds up to 90kmh through a blur of forest interior.

Again, that to me is a commercial not a conservation decision. If people don’t want to travel on a fast moving monorail, they won’t.

There are already better means for tourists of all capabilities to experience what sets us apart from the rest of the world.

There are hundreds of non- destructive concessionaires, many of whom have been vocal in their opposition to this proposal.

Which again suggests to me, that economic protectionism is what appears to be driving some of the opposition.

The Government has announced the first five charter (or partnership) schools. I hope they do well, in what really matters – lifting the educational achievement of students who choose to attend them.

The five schools are:

• Vanguard Military School sponsored by Advance Training Centres Limited.  It will be a co-educational senior secondary school for years 11-13, located in Albany Auckland.  The ethos and training methodology of the military will be used to achieve results that allow students to move into a broad range of further training or employment options.

• Te Kura Hourua o Whangarei Terenga Paraoa sponsored by He Puna Marama Charitable Trust.  It will be a co-educational secondary school for years 7-13 located in Whangarei.  The school intends to raise the achievement of Māori students by reconnecting them with an ethos of leadership and pride.

• Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru sponsored by Ngā Parirau Mātauranga Trust.  It will be a co-educational secondary school for years 9-13 located in Whangaruru, Northland. The bilingual school will target Māori students and offer additional learning opportunities including farming and outdoor education.

• The Rise UP Academy sponsored by Rise UP Trust.  Located in Mangere, South Auckland for years 1-6.  The Rise UP approach will include effective governance, excellent teachers of inquiry based learning and culturally responsive whānau engagement.

• South Auckland Middle School sponsored by Villa Education Trust.  It will be a middle school for years 7-10 located in South Auckland.  Project-based learning will be used for each student within a structured environment, based on Christian philosophy and values.

The five schools are mainly focused on Maori and Pasifika students who generally are falling behind in the current education system. Wouldn’t it be great if they lift achievement for those students.

The link above has a two page summary of each school. They are interesting to read, and one can only be supportive of their intentions and ambitions to make a difference.

Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act forces employers who win contracts off their competitors to make job offers to all the existing staff of the competitor they have won the contract off.

At present Part 6A only applies to a few industries where workers are deemed vulnerable, such as cleaning.

However David Cunliffe campaigned on a promise of extending Part 6A to all workers.

Therefore to avoid being labelled a hypocrite, I can only assume that the new Labour Leader will be making job offers to all the existing staff of David Shearer’s office.

How could you argue for a law change to protect the rights of employees whose employers lose a contract, and then fail to apply the same standard to yourself?

It’s just like how Labour (and Green) MPs argue against trial periods in employment, yet have all their staff on contracts that allow them to terminate their contracts without cause at any time – basically a never ending trial period.

So will David Cunliffe live up to his campaign pledge and apply Part 6A to the Labour Leader’s office and make them all a job offer? For as the old saying goes, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00PM – 3.00PM.

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he still think that Chorus “will go broke” if his Government does not intervene to change the pricing for access to the old copper-based broadband network as proposed by the Commerce Commission; if so, why?
2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Conservation: Did he discuss the Tukituki Catchment Proposal with any Department of Conservation senior management in the two months prior to 2 August 2013; if so, with whom?
3. Hon KATE WILKINSON to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received about the outlook for the New Zealand economy?
4. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Did the Treasury provide advice as to whether he should support or oppose overruling the Commerce Commission’s draft determination on copper broadband pricing given that the Treasury has previously advised against subsidising big business such as the $30 million Tiwai subsidy which has “no economic justification”?
5. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for ACC: What announcements has she made today about ACC levies?
6. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister for the Environment:Has she ever received any advice that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Plan Change 6, which paves the way for the Ruataniwha Dam proposal, in its current form, does not meet the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1993 for plan changes, and would not achieve the requirements of Part 2 of that Act?
7. Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister for Social Development: How will the Vulnerable Children Bill make a difference for those children most at risk of abuse and neglect?
8. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: Does he believe there is a housing affordability crisis in Auckland?
9. MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on partnership schools?
10. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Will she ditch the Government’s proposal to remove references to the “ethic of stewardship”, the “maintenance and enhancement of amenity values”, the “maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment” and the “intrinsic value of ecosystems” from the Resource Management Act 1993; if not, why not?
11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Why did he say in regard to the raid on the Fiji Democracy and Freedom movement, “I stand 100 percent by what I said before: any actions that the SIS or the GCSB take in my opinion are legal…”?
12. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Defence: Does he accept all of the conclusions of the New Zealand Defence Force External Safety Management Review; if not, why not?

Today will be a notable Question Time as it is new Labour Leader David Cunliffe’s first question time as Leader of the Opposition. Today Labour are asking five questions. They are asking about Chorus, Broadband Pricing, the Ruataniwha Dam proposal, Housing Affordability and the Defence Force Review. The Greens are asking about the Tukituki Catchment Proposal and RMA Reforms. New Zealand First is asking about the SIS and the GCSB.

Patsy of the Day Goes to Mike Sabin for Question 9: What recent announcements has she made on partnership schools?

Government Bills 3.00 PM – 6.00 PM and 7.30 PM- 10.00 PM.

1. Vulnerable Children Bill – First Reading

2. Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill – First Reading

3. Electoral Amendment Bill -First Reading

4.Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill -First Reading

The Vulnerable Children Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Social Development, Paula Bennett .The bill forms part of a series of measures to protect and improve the well-being of vulnerable children.

The Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill,  is being guided through the house by the Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss. This bill reforms the legislation that governs consumer credit contracts.

The Electoral Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill implements certain amendments to the Electoral Act 1993 recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee’s Inquiry into the 2011 General Election.

The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill empowers the High Court to issue a public protection order to detain a person in a secure facility, when, at the end of a finite prison sentence or subject to the most intensive form of an extended supervision order, they pose a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent reoffending.

TVNZ reports:

A Whangarei District Council employee has been fired for nominating a candidate for mayoralty.

Jan Walters-Gleeson signed a nomination form last month for Stan Semenoff, a former mayor of Whangarei who is re-standing.

My first reaction was that the Council was wrong to do so. Employees have a right to nominate, or even to stand. But there is a complicating factor.

Ms Walters-Gleeson, who is the personal assistant to the mayor and chief executive of the Whangarei District Council, was sacked two weeks ago, Radio New Zealand reports.

Being the PA to the Mayor makes this case more nuanced. I think it is fair enough to conclude that you can’t have a Mayoral PA who nominates a challenger to the Mayor. How could you possibly have a working relationship with the Mayor after that?

I can’t fathom how Ms Walters-Gleeson could have though that there would be no consequences to doing this.

Now having said that, I think the better response from the Council would be to move her into another job, rather than sack her. She obviously could not continue as the PA to the Mayor, but could continue as a PA in another section of the Council.

Mr Dunne said her dismissal appears to be a gross breach of her rights as a citizen to participate freely and fairly in the electoral process.

“I am surprised we have heard nothing so far from the Electoral Commission, given its oversight role of electoral processes, about the infringement of Ms Walters-Gleeson’s rights as an elector.

I am not surprised as the Electoral Commission does not run local body elections, but more to the point they have no role in employment law. There is no dispute about the validity of the nomination form, just a dispute over a sacking.

According to Radio New Zealand, Ms Walters-Gleeson will fight for her reinstatement.

As I said, I think she should be employed elsewhere in the Council. But one can not expect to be PA to the Mayor when yerou sign the nomination form of a rival. It would be like claiming that an MP’s EA could nominate their election opponent, yet still be the MPs EA.  I’m not sure Peter Dunne would be too happy if his EA had signed the nomination form of Charles Chauvel!

UPDATE: I’m told the current Mayor is not standing, which makes it less of a judgement of error. I still think a Mayoral PA should not sign any Mayoral nominations forms. However the appropriate response is to transfer, not sack.

That is the headlines in Australia, after Tony Abbott announced a 19 person Cabinet with just one female Minister in it. Afghanistan has three! NZ by comparison has six.

This to me shows the importance of making sure you have some diversity with your candidates, and this needs to start in opposition. It is too late once you are in Government as generally new MPs won’t become Ministers immediately.

Duncan Garner writes:

Cunliffe will need to tread carefully with his reshuffle and the ABC club – except for Trevor Mallard and Chris Hipkins.

Mallard’s time is up. The public tired of him years ago. He has been one of the main protagonists in the fight against Cunliffe. He should be dealt to. He has done his time in NZ politics.

He’s currently on the taxpayers tit living it up in San Fran – it should be his last trip. He’s done well out of NZ politics and it’s time he was moved on. I don’t see what he offers anymore.

He’s on a junket and taxpayers should be appalled. Cunliffe should shoulder tap him and tell him to start looking for relief teaching job in Hutt South after the next election. Labour needs to signal a fresh start under Cunliffe and getting rid of Mallard would do that.

And whip Chris Hipkins will have to go too. Cunliffe needs a whip he can trust. He can’t trust Hipkins, it’s as simple as that.

Pretty blunt advice.

He will need to tread carefully with the other ABC members. Annette King, Phil Goff, Jacinda Ardern, Phil Twyford and, dare I say it, ABC Club President and life member, Clayton Cosgrove are all pretty good performers that can’t be ditched that easily. Cunliffe would be wise to keep them. And he needs to keep them to get this caucus firing.

If you excluded the ABCs from the Shadow Cabinet, there wouldn’t be enough MPs remaining to make up the Shadow Cabinet!

I expect Labour to get a bounce in the polls and Cunliffe to get a honeymoon. But he will want to eat into John Key’s support, not just the Greens. Taking from the Greens will mean nothing. He must rip into the centre.

I worry about the expectations Cunliffe has raised amongst his supporters. He has signalled a strong left-wing agenda which I’m not sure even he believes in.

I think DC believes in getting elected!

Grant Robertson has been dumped as Deputy Leader, and David Parker has been nominated as Deputy.

This is hugely significant. While there will be no overt disloyalty (at least for now) it clearly shows that some MPs are going to be waiting for Cunliffe to fail.

Robertson gets Shadow Leader of the House, which was Mallard’s portfolio.

Cunliffe said there would be “no retribution” and he has just sacked Robertson, Hipkins and Mallard. What would retribution look like?

UPDATE: Bryce Edwards has some top tweets on the sacking.

Stuff reports:

Parents’ misuse of decile ratings has inflamed racial and social class stigma in schools, sparking a call for a major overhaul of the funding system, a new report claims.

The Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) paper, produced for the union’s annual conference next month, outlines several criticisms of the decile system.

It recommends a new model in which each school is funded based on an individual socio-economic profile, rather than a decile number.

That sounds well worth considering. You need a funding formula of some sort, but the deciles have become a simplistic proxy for quality – which they are not.

The different in funding by decile is huge:

The decile funding examples below are based on a secondary school with a roll of 1000.

Decile 1: $979,884.69

Decile 2: $699,354.69

Decile 3: $435,034.69

Decile 4: $266,984.69

Decile 8: $107,354.69

Decile 9: $85,324.69

Decile 10: $52,734.69–

But note that this is only around 13% of their operational funding. However it does mean that a decile 10 school need to fund-raise an additional $920,000 or $920 per pupil to get the same funding as a decile 1 school.

Most Labour MPs preferences were known in advance of the vote. Patrick Gower has some info on some last minute changes including Parker being the 7th vote for Jones. Based on this, the above is the likely (but no way to know for sure as a secret ballot) voting preferences for the caucus.

3 News reports:

Grant Robertson “may or may not” stay deputy leader of Labour, while chief of staff Fran Mold has been cut, the party’s new leader David Cunliffe says.

Caucus will vote for a new deputy and new whips tomorrow morning.

At his first press conference at parliament since becoming leader on Sunday, Mr Cunliffe said he will make recommendations for all of the vacant positions.

He said the current whips, Chris Hipkins and Darien Fenton, also “may or may not” stay the same.

That’s despite Mr Hipkins and Ms Fenton – supporters of Mr Robertson – standing down from their roles on Monday.

Mr Cunliffe says Labour’s chief of staff, former TVNZ journalist-turned-press secretary Ms Mold, has lost her job, but he isn’t confirming her replacement.

He’s still considering other staffing, including press secretary positions.

I heard rumours of a former Cullen staffer being hired as Chief of Staff. We’ll find out soon. It sounds like there will be significant changes in their Leader’s Office.